"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that.

Yes. Unless there's a voluntary tax collection method.

I've seen this
thought expressed so many times that I almost becamse numb to its
inherent stuipdity. After all, we (the U.S. electorate) re-elected our
worst President in my lifetime, and possibly in the whole country's
lifetime.

You're in a time warp George, this is not the Roosevelt Administration.

And why did most of us vote for him? Fear, that's why.

That's not what the polling data says.

Not real
fear, but fear of imaginary evils. Boy, are we stupid!

Yes you are.

But even against that backdrop, the foolishness about taxes is
extraordinarily stupid. The main point is that our taxes are among the
lowest in countries with standard of living that's similar to ours.

And that means what regarding the morality of taking from people who earn?

A few
are a tiny bit lower, such as Switzerland and Finland. But I don't think
it's wise to compare the U.S. to those countries, for a variety of
reasons.


Too much ****ing snow.

My point about taxes is that people are able to earn good livings in this
country because of our infrastructure, which was built with tax money and
is maintained through tax money and will be improved through tax money.

But could have been done privately for less.

If you run a business, do you really think the amount you pay your
employees represents the true cost of the value of their work?

How do you determine such value? The market decides such things.

It does
not. The transportation network was not free, you know. Nor is education.
Do you want to hire people who can't read at high school level?

All the more reason to abolish public schools or institute a voucher system,
since that's exactly what public schools have produced all too often.

Do you
want to have to train people to use computers?

If necessary.

Do you want to build your
own roads?

Will it get me where I want to go? Will there be a response to the demand
for more of them that is comensurate with that demand?

Do you want to build your own power lines to connect to the
electric company, and your own sewer lines so you can have indoor
plumbing? Remember, our taxes are among the lowest for industrialized
countries.


Is it impossible to hire people to do those things without involving
government? The government does essentially the same thing, they hire
people to do it.

The real problem is government waste. Is it worse than in large
companies?

Large companies have to make a profit, they have an incentive to not be
wasteful, government has no such incentive.

The biggest money pit in the government is the military. But
you "conservatives" love the guns and battleships and fighter jets. It's
just that you don't want to pay for them.


If that were part of the short list of things that government actually
should spend money on, it wouldn't be so bad. It's much easier to keep an
eye on a few things than on hundreds of things.

It comes down to what you think the purpose of government is. My conviction
is that governments are necessary to protect the rights of individuals. To
do this they need methods of enforcement, methods of investigation, and
methods of adjudication. They also need money to do such things, and the
Constitution outlined ways for the collection of such monies.
There are other ways they can collect money that don't require force, such
as lotteries.

Other people have other ideas about what the role of government should be in
people's lives. I just don't want government to be able to force people to
give it money.

I'm a moderate with a libertarian bent but I'll take a stab at this.

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

What you are talking about is weath redistribution. The US constitution
does not authorize wealth redistribution. At most, it tries to level the
playing field.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that. I've seen this
thought expressed so many times that I almost becamse numb to its
inherent stuipdity. After all, we (the U.S. electorate) re-elected our
worst President in my lifetime, and possibly in the whole country's
lifetime. And why did most of us vote for him? Fear, that's why. Not real
fear, but fear of imaginary evils. Boy, are we stupid!

I'm sure that many who voted for Bush did so while holding their noses.
Kerry simply failed to convince the voters that he could do a better job.

But even against that backdrop, the foolishness about taxes is
extraordinarily stupid. The main point is that our taxes are among the
lowest in countries with standard of living that's similar to ours. A few
are a tiny bit lower, such as Switzerland and Finland. But I don't think
it's wise to compare the U.S. to those countries, for a variety of
reasons.

Low taxes helped our economy become the largest in the world.

My point about taxes is that people are able to earn good livings in this
country because of our infrastructure, which was built with tax money and
is maintained through tax money and will be improved through tax money.
If you run a business, do you really think the amount you pay your
employees represents the true cost of the value of their work? It does
not. The transportation network was not free, you know. Nor is education.
Do you want to hire people who can't read at high school level? Do you
want to have to train people to use computers? Do you want to build your
own roads? Do you want to build your own power lines to connect to the
electric company, and your own sewer lines so you can have indoor
plumbing? Remember, our taxes are among the lowest for industrialized
countries.

Some things the government does well. Most other things government does not
do well. I don't hear anyone disputing that the government should not be
involved with building roads for example.

A lot of money gets wasted on human resources and retirement plans.

The real problem is government waste. Is it worse than in large
companies? The biggest money pit in the government is the military. But
you "conservatives" love the guns and battleships and fighter jets. It's
just that you don't want to pay for them.

This is absolutely true. The military budget is full of pork. We don't
need the ultra-expensive weapons systems these days.

Middius, that's probably the most intelligent post you've ever written!

But then again, the competition wasn't that strong.

John Williams (famed composer or classical guitarist?) wrote:


I'm a moderate with a libertarian bent but I'll take a stab at this.

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

What you are talking about is weath redistribution. The US constitution
does not authorize wealth redistribution. At most, it tries to level the
playing field.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that. I've seen this
thought expressed so many times that I almost becamse numb to its
inherent stuipdity. After all, we (the U.S. electorate) re-elected our
worst President in my lifetime, and possibly in the whole country's
lifetime. And why did most of us vote for him? Fear, that's why. Not real
fear, but fear of imaginary evils. Boy, are we stupid!

I'm sure that many who voted for Bush did so while holding their noses.
Kerry simply failed to convince the voters that he could do a better job.

But even against that backdrop, the foolishness about taxes is
extraordinarily stupid. The main point is that our taxes are among the
lowest in countries with standard of living that's similar to ours. A few
are a tiny bit lower, such as Switzerland and Finland. But I don't think
it's wise to compare the U.S. to those countries, for a variety of
reasons.

Low taxes helped our economy become the largest in the world.

My point about taxes is that people are able to earn good livings in this
country because of our infrastructure, which was built with tax money and
is maintained through tax money and will be improved through tax money.
If you run a business, do you really think the amount you pay your
employees represents the true cost of the value of their work? It does
not. The transportation network was not free, you know. Nor is education.
Do you want to hire people who can't read at high school level? Do you
want to have to train people to use computers? Do you want to build your
own roads? Do you want to build your own power lines to connect to the
electric company, and your own sewer lines so you can have indoor
plumbing? Remember, our taxes are among the lowest for industrialized
countries.

Some things the government does well. Most other things government does not
do well. I don't hear anyone disputing that the government should not be
involved with building roads for example.

A lot of money gets wasted on human resources and retirement plans.

The real problem is government waste. Is it worse than in large
companies? The biggest money pit in the government is the military. But
you "conservatives" love the guns and battleships and fighter jets. It's
just that you don't want to pay for them.

This is absolutely true. The military budget is full of pork. We don't
need the ultra-expensive weapons systems these days.



There is no question that the "military industrial complex" seems to be an
almost bottomless money pit with lots of wasteful spending.

From my perspective, the problem is not so much the issue of taxation, but how
it is applied. The IRS in and of itself is one of the largest bureacracies and
promotes one of the most complex, complicated and unfair taxation systems ever
devised.
It is in need of serious revision, and not just the usual cosmetic tinkering
re. a few loopholes that seem to appear every few years. Why has there not
been a serious look at either a flat tax (with allowances at the extreme low
end of the income scale to prevent unfair penalization of those below the
poverty line) and/or some form of sales tax? Perhaps some combination of the
two might be worth consideration. As it stands now, the IRS' dependence on
fulfilling the whims of numerous lobbyists has resulted in a system favoring
the rich (who can afford accountants to find all the arcane loopholes) and
corporations almost exclusively. It's time for some new looks at an old
problem.



Bruce J. Richman

"John Williams" wrote in message
...
I'm a moderate with a libertarian bent but I'll take a stab at this.

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

What you are talking about is weath redistribution. The US constitution
does not authorize wealth redistribution. At most, it tries to level the
playing field.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that. I've seen this
thought expressed so many times that I almost becamse numb to its
inherent stuipdity. After all, we (the U.S. electorate) re-elected our
worst President in my lifetime, and possibly in the whole country's
lifetime. And why did most of us vote for him? Fear, that's why. Not real
fear, but fear of imaginary evils. Boy, are we stupid!

I'm sure that many who voted for Bush did so while holding their noses.
Kerry simply failed to convince the voters that he could do a better job.

But even against that backdrop, the foolishness about taxes is
extraordinarily stupid. The main point is that our taxes are among the
lowest in countries with standard of living that's similar to ours. A few
are a tiny bit lower, such as Switzerland and Finland. But I don't think
it's wise to compare the U.S. to those countries, for a variety of
reasons.

Low taxes helped our economy become the largest in the world.

My point about taxes is that people are able to earn good livings in this
country because of our infrastructure, which was built with tax money and
is maintained through tax money and will be improved through tax money.
If you run a business, do you really think the amount you pay your
employees represents the true cost of the value of their work? It does
not. The transportation network was not free, you know. Nor is education.
Do you want to hire people who can't read at high school level? Do you
want to have to train people to use computers? Do you want to build your
own roads? Do you want to build your own power lines to connect to the
electric company, and your own sewer lines so you can have indoor
plumbing? Remember, our taxes are among the lowest for industrialized
countries.

Some things the government does well. Most other things government does
not
do well. I don't hear anyone disputing that the government should not be
involved with building roads for example.

I would put that in the category of things the government does not do well.
In the Los Angeles area, they don't seem to do it much at all, which is why
traffic is such a problem. Private toll roads are possible and desirable
IMO.


A lot of money gets wasted on human resources and retirement plans.

The real problem is government waste. Is it worse than in large
companies? The biggest money pit in the government is the military. But
you "conservatives" love the guns and battleships and fighter jets. It's
just that you don't want to pay for them.

This is absolutely true. The military budget is full of pork. We don't
need the ultra-expensive weapons systems these days.

That depends on whether or not you think our defense should be able to
handle any kind of threat it might be called upon to respond to. I agree
there is waste in military spending, however some of the things that seem
outrageous are the result of the fact that they need to be made for a
specific purpose and are required to be made in small amounts. A tool that
must be a certain size and doesn't exist in the current marketplace must be
fabricated. The workup for such an item can be considerable.

George doesn't seem to get that the one of the major reasons for the success
of the U.S. is the fact that we have such low taxes compared to other
countries.

Mr. Middius said:

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that. I've seen this
thought expressed so many times that I almost becamse numb to its
inherent stuipdity. After all, we (the U.S. electorate) re-elected our
worst President in my lifetime, and possibly in the whole country's
lifetime. And why did most of us vote for him? Fear, that's why. Not real
fear, but fear of imaginary evils. Boy, are we stupid!

But even against that backdrop, the foolishness about taxes is
extraordinarily stupid. The main point is that our taxes are among the
lowest in countries with standard of living that's similar to ours. A few
are a tiny bit lower, such as Switzerland and Finland. But I don't think
it's wise to compare the U.S. to those countries, for a variety of
reasons.

My point about taxes is that people are able to earn good livings in this
country because of our infrastructure, which was built with tax money and
is maintained through tax money and will be improved through tax money.
If you run a business, do you really think the amount you pay your
employees represents the true cost of the value of their work? It does
not. The transportation network was not free, you know. Nor is education.
Do you want to hire people who can't read at high school level? Do you
want to have to train people to use computers? Do you want to build your
own roads? Do you want to build your own power lines to connect to the
electric company, and your own sewer lines so you can have indoor
plumbing? Remember, our taxes are among the lowest for industrialized
countries.

The real problem is government waste. Is it worse than in large
companies? The biggest money pit in the government is the military. But
you "conservatives" love the guns and battleships and fighter jets. It's
just that you don't want to pay for them.

As a possibly former conservative, I must say that my objections to taxes have
never really been about the AMOUNT of taxes taken from my paycheck, but the
needlessly complicated and inefficient way the government takes those funds.
We have created a cottage industry based upon the fact that the tax system is
too complicated for the average taxpayer to understand. Not only do we pay
taxes, but we have to pay others to pay our taxes for us.

I've always been for a flat tax, or a national sales tax, or something similar.
Get rid of the loopholes for the rich. Have everyone pay the same percentage.
Offer exemptions for those under the poverty level and that's it. Get rid of
the IRS, whose paperwork costs alone amount to close to a billion dollars per
year. Can't we find a better use for that money, like education or the
environment? We need to simplify the tax code once and for all.

The fact that Bush is promising to revamp the system is the best news I've
heard from the Oval Office since that monkey took office.

Boon

"Michael McKelvy" said:

George doesn't seem to get that the one of the major reasons for the success
of the U.S. is the fact that we have such low taxes compared to other
countries.

Believe it or not, but it's entirely possible that this line of
thinking will breed an entire new generation of communists...

It is my opinion that a civilized society should look after the basic
needs all of its members, including the weak/poor/sick etc.
By basic needs I mean food, water, education, housing, medical help,
energy etc.
Yes, there will always be people who will take advantage of such a
system, but does this fact outweigh the benefits for many others?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

George M. Middius wrote:


Bruce J. Richman said:

From my perspective, the problem is not so much the issue of taxation, but
how
it is applied. The IRS in and of itself is one of the largest bureacracies
and
promotes one of the most complex, complicated and unfair taxation systems
ever
devised.

Your observation is absolutely right, except that you omitted an
attribution of the arcane maze of dodges, loopholes, and addenda to
codicils to amendments to exceptions. All that crap comes from the
Congress, as you know, and every little bit is enacted at the behest of
lobbyists acting on behalf of interested parties. How the tax code is
written is not the fault of the IRS. You could, however, make a case that
the IRS is unfair, arbitrary, even capricious in how they administer it.



Actually, we agree, since I did mention the involvement of lobbyists in
perpetuating the fiasco known as the IRS.
And yes, I think its administration of the tax code is unfair, arbitrary and
capricious.



Bruce J. Richman

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:28:36 -0800, "John Williams"
wrote:

I'm a moderate with a libertarian bent but I'll take a stab at this.

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

What you are talking about is weath redistribution. The US constitution
does not authorize wealth redistribution.

16th Amendment?

Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

The fact that Bush is promising to revamp the system is the best news I've
heard from the Oval Office since that monkey took office.

If you want to bet on this question, bet against reform. Remember how
McCain's candidacy was sabotaged by other Republicans?

I'm certainly not holding my breath. After all, when all the abuses of the IRS
became a huge issue during the Clinton administration, I thought something
would finally be done. All that happened was the IRS received a slap on the
wrist, and they backed off a bit. In fact, they hired a ****load of new agents
the following year, costing taxpayers even more.

Boon

From: George M. Middius

Dimmika slobbered:

Middius, that's probably the most intelligent post you've ever written!
But then again, the competition wasn't that strong.

So your erstwhile engagement to the falsely pious Stynchblob is now on
the rocks? Too bad.

Who or what is a Stynchblob?
I don't speak Nerd.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

I would put that in the category of things the government does not do
well.
In the Los Angeles area, they don't seem to do it much at all, which is
why
traffic is such a problem. Private toll roads are possible and desirable
IMO.

Er, McKelvy, aren't tolls another form of taxation? I didn't think that I
would ever see the day when you would volunatarily propose a tax.

George doesn't seem to get that the one of the major reasons for the
success
of the U.S. is the fact that we have such low taxes compared to other
countries.

What you don't seem to get is that George is saying that the US already has
very low taxes compared to countries that enjoy a similar standard of
living. And if taxes go any lower so will standard of living with less money
to spend on infrastructure, education and healthcare.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" said:

George doesn't seem to get that the one of the major reasons for the
success
of the U.S. is the fact that we have such low taxes compared to other
countries.

Believe it or not, but it's entirely possible that this line of
thinking will breed an entire new generation of communists...


Not if they look around for sucessful implementation of such a system.

It is my opinion that a civilized society should look after the basic
needs all of its members, including the weak/poor/sick etc.

It is my opinion that people need to be respnsible for themselves and taking
care of the weak, the poor, the sick, is up to the individual and those who
wish to voluntarily contribute to whatever charities provide services for
them.

By basic needs I mean food, water, education, housing, medical help,
energy etc.
Yes, there will always be people who will take advantage of such a
system, but does this fact outweigh the benefits for many others?

It doesn't outweigh the fact that the only way government can do it by
force.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

I would put that in the category of things the government does not do
well.
In the Los Angeles area, they don't seem to do it much at all, which is
why
traffic is such a problem. Private toll roads are possible and desirable
IMO.

Er, McKelvy, aren't tolls another form of taxation?

Did you miss the word "private?"

I didn't think that I
would ever see the day when you would volunatarily propose a tax.

You miss the point of voluntary. You may feel free to send the government
as much money as you wish. It's the threat of jail and the use of force I
oppose, not taxation in and of itself. I recognize governments need money
to provide for protection of individual liberty.

George doesn't seem to get that the one of the major reasons for the
success
of the U.S. is the fact that we have such low taxes compared to other
countries.

What you don't seem to get is that George is saying that the US already
has
very low taxes compared to countries that enjoy a similar standard of
living.

Of course I get that, it doesn't matter, they are still to high and they are
still collected by force, and they are still spent o things government has
no business doing.

And if taxes go any lower so will standard of living with less money
to spend on infrastructure, education and healthcare.

It ain't necessarily so.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:28:36 -0800, "John Williams"
wrote:

I'm a moderate with a libertarian bent but I'll take a stab at this.

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

What you are talking about is weath redistribution. The US constitution
does not authorize wealth redistribution.

16th Amendment?

Which is unconstitutional. The only reason it wasn't ruled so was because
the Court was afraid of FDR.

FINALLY, someone in RAO with an IQ over 60

go get 'em George!

stupid republicans, they obviously hate America!




"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that. I've seen this
thought expressed so many times that I almost becamse numb to its
inherent stuipdity. After all, we (the U.S. electorate) re-elected our
worst President in my lifetime, and possibly in the whole country's
lifetime. And why did most of us vote for him? Fear, that's why. Not real
fear, but fear of imaginary evils. Boy, are we stupid!

But even against that backdrop, the foolishness about taxes is
extraordinarily stupid. The main point is that our taxes are among the
lowest in countries with standard of living that's similar to ours. A few
are a tiny bit lower, such as Switzerland and Finland. But I don't think
it's wise to compare the U.S. to those countries, for a variety of
reasons.

My point about taxes is that people are able to earn good livings in this
country because of our infrastructure, which was built with tax money and
is maintained through tax money and will be improved through tax money.
If you run a business, do you really think the amount you pay your
employees represents the true cost of the value of their work? It does
not. The transportation network was not free, you know. Nor is education.
Do you want to hire people who can't read at high school level? Do you
want to have to train people to use computers? Do you want to build your
own roads? Do you want to build your own power lines to connect to the
electric company, and your own sewer lines so you can have indoor
plumbing? Remember, our taxes are among the lowest for industrialized
countries.

The real problem is government waste. Is it worse than in large
companies? The biggest money pit in the government is the military. But
you "conservatives" love the guns and battleships and fighter jets. It's
just that you don't want to pay for them.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:28:36 -0800, "John Williams"
wrote:

I'm a moderate with a libertarian bent but I'll take a stab at this.

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

What you are talking about is weath redistribution. The US constitution
does not authorize wealth redistribution.

16th Amendment?

Which is unconstitutional. The only reason it wasn't ruled so was because
the Court was afraid of FDR.

OK this one is stupid and I did it. I start discussing income tax and I
just glaze over.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

And if taxes go any lower so will standard of living with less money
to spend on infrastructure, education and healthcare.

It ain't necessarily so.

Basic economics dictates that it is so. I have seen in my local
neighborhoods be it Austin or San Francisco. Public libraries closing
branches, public transportation curtailing routes, prolonged road works. The
whole system is falling apart and you're saying that we still pay too much
tax? Come on!

"Annika1980" wrote in message

Middius, that's probably the most intelligent post you've ever written!

But then again, the competition wasn't that strong.

Are you from India, perhaps?

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" said:

George doesn't seem to get that the one of the major reasons for the
success
of the U.S. is the fact that we have such low taxes compared to other
countries.

Believe it or not, but it's entirely possible that this line of
thinking will breed an entire new generation of communists...

According to McKelvy and his ilk, they're already here. Or has everybody
forgotten Taxachusetts?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Bush and his cronies are entirely too fascistic. They want a state
religion, codes of bedroom conduct, and racial purity. Just like
you-know-who did.

Tom Jones? Er, I mean Bob.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:28:14 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

It's the threat of jail and the use of force I
oppose....

But you are in favor of this threat when it comes to private
contracts. Hence you must acknowledge the juridical basis of all
contracts. Now this means that all contracts are really the creation
of the state, so they can be defined by the state in different ways,
including a requirement of paying the state some portion of the value
of the contract for its services. Indeed this has always been true of
all forms of property rights--that they are defined by the state and
have been subject to various restrictions and qualifications. The
conception of property you are using has never actually existed
anywhere and is a purely ideological construct, hence it cannot really
serve to define taxation as theft.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:29:17 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"jak163" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:28:36 -0800, "John Williams"
wrote:

I'm a moderate with a libertarian bent but I'll take a stab at this.

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

What you are talking about is weath redistribution. The US constitution
does not authorize wealth redistribution.

16th Amendment?

Which is unconstitutional. The only reason it wasn't ruled so was because
the Court was afraid of FDR.

Constitutional amendments aren't subject to judicial review. They
can't be unconstitutional.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:34:04 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:28:36 -0800, "John Williams"
wrote:

I'm a moderate with a libertarian bent but I'll take a stab at this.

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

What you are talking about is weath redistribution. The US constitution
does not authorize wealth redistribution.

16th Amendment?

Which is unconstitutional. The only reason it wasn't ruled so was because
the Court was afraid of FDR.

OK this one is stupid and I did it. I start discussing income tax and I
just glaze over.

Fair enough.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


The main point is that our taxes are among the
lowest in countries with standard of living that's similar to ours. A few
are a tiny bit lower, such as Switzerland and Finland.

The bit about Finland could not be more incorrect. Nokia, a finnish company
with mostly finnish top executives, is my client and I know the country
exceedingly well. Perhaps you meant some other country. If you earn $70-80K
salary in Finland, your total tax rate will exceed 50%, just to give you an
idea.

Cheers,

Margaret

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that. I've seen this
thought expressed so many times that I almost becamse numb to its
inherent stuipdity. After all, we (the U.S. electorate) re-elected our
worst President in my lifetime, and possibly in the whole country's
lifetime. And why did most of us vote for him? Fear, that's why. Not real
fear, but fear of imaginary evils. Boy, are we stupid!

But even against that backdrop, the foolishness about taxes is
extraordinarily stupid. The main point is that our taxes are among the
lowest in countries with standard of living that's similar to ours. A few
are a tiny bit lower, such as Switzerland and Finland. But I don't think
it's wise to compare the U.S. to those countries, for a variety of
reasons.

My point about taxes is that people are able to earn good livings in this
country because of our infrastructure, which was built with tax money and
is maintained through tax money and will be improved through tax money.
If you run a business, do you really think the amount you pay your
employees represents the true cost of the value of their work? It does
not. The transportation network was not free, you know. Nor is education.
Do you want to hire people who can't read at high school level? Do you
want to have to train people to use computers? Do you want to build your
own roads? Do you want to build your own power lines to connect to the
electric company, and your own sewer lines so you can have indoor
plumbing? Remember, our taxes are among the lowest for industrialized
countries.

The real problem is government waste. Is it worse than in large
companies? The biggest money pit in the government is the military. But
you "conservatives" love the guns and battleships and fighter jets. It's
just that you don't want to pay for them.



I, for one, have consistently supported the concept of taxation. However,
I feel that the collection system is corrupted by political considerations
form
both the right and left. I despise it when tax policies are created for the
purpose
of political and social behavioral stimulus. This perverts the primary goal
of taxation, which is to collect an equitable amount of a families income,
with respect to relative level of income. No lower income person should pay
too
much or too little taxes, the same for mid income and high income people.
And it should be progessive, as it is, and non confiscatory at the high end,
as it is.
However, every income producing person should pay some minimum percentage
of income tax. Worling poor people should pay at least somepercentage, but
not
as high a prcentage as those earning more money. Those earning lots of money
should not be allowed to wheedle out of taxes through loopholes and should
pay
some minimum percentage, but a higher minimum percentage
than for the poor or middle earners. But no one should be paying any more
than a marginal
25% rate.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


Other people have other ideas about what the role of government should be
in people's lives. I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money.

Then it woun't collect 'any' money.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" said:

George doesn't seem to get that the one of the major reasons for the
success
of the U.S. is the fact that we have such low taxes compared to other
countries.

Believe it or not, but it's entirely possible that this line of
thinking will breed an entire new generation of communists...

It is my opinion that a civilized society should look after the basic
needs all of its members, including the weak/poor/sick etc.
By basic needs I mean food, water, education, housing, medical help,
energy etc.
Yes, there will always be people who will take advantage of such a
system, but does this fact outweigh the benefits for many others?

Yes, it does. Trying to help people in need, particularly with no time
limit on benefits, often opens the door to alternative non-productive life
styles with impacts you cannot begin to predict. Look what AFDC did to black
families. Who would have thought the government efforts to help poor
children could have become such a disaster of single parent families and
dysfunctional youth?

http://www.ncfc.net/fish13ca.txt

Did you know that AFDC causes disability?
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/afdc.htm

Or that elimination of AFDC under welfare reform actually improved the
overall number of black children in poverty?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1661.cfm

ScottW

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Williams" wrote in message
...

Some things the government does well. Most other things government does
not
do well. I don't hear anyone disputing that the government should not be
involved with building roads for example.

I would put that in the category of things the government does not do
well.
In the Los Angeles area, they don't seem to do it much at all, which is
why traffic is such a problem. Private toll roads are possible and
desirable IMO.


They tried that in Northern Virginia. It went belly up
and the state had to take it over, and reinvest in the infrastructure
to remediate maintenance deferred by the private owners.




A lot of money gets wasted on human resources and retirement plans.

The real problem is government waste. Is it worse than in large
companies? The biggest money pit in the government is the military. But
you "conservatives" love the guns and battleships and fighter jets. It's
just that you don't want to pay for them.

This is absolutely true. The military budget is full of pork. We don't
need the ultra-expensive weapons systems these days.

That depends on whether or not you think our defense should be able to
handle any kind of threat it might be called upon to respond to. I agree
there is waste in military spending, however some of the things that seem
outrageous are the result of the fact that they need to be made for a
specific purpose and are required to be made in small amounts. A tool
that must be a certain size and doesn't exist in the current marketplace
must be fabricated. The workup for such an item can be considerable.

George doesn't seem to get that the one of the major reasons for the
success of the U.S. is the fact that we have such low taxes compared to
other countries.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...


It is my opinion that a civilized society should look after the basic
needs all of its members, including the weak/poor/sick etc.
By basic needs I mean food, water, education, housing, medical help,
energy etc.
Yes, there will always be people who will take advantage of such a
system, but does this fact outweigh the benefits for many others?



That removes all self responsibility and it is a grievously
injurious act for a government to perpetrate on poor people,
and it only serves to peretuate poverty. It is a form
of enslavement.

However, providing relief or supplementing life's essentials
to those who, for no reason of individual lack of ambition,
haven't any possible way to provide for themselves, is
reasonable.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Marc Phillips said:

The fact that Bush is promising to revamp the system is the best news
I've
heard from the Oval Office since that monkey took office.

If you want to bet on this question, bet against reform. Remember how
McCain's candidacy was sabotaged by other Republicans?

This will be sabotaged by the Democrats.

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Mr. Middius said:

As a possibly former conservative,

Why abandon conservative viewpoints? Because of Bush? He is not a
conservative.

I must say that my objections to taxes have
never really been about the AMOUNT of taxes taken from my paycheck,
but the
needlessly complicated and inefficient way the government takes those
funds.
We have created a cottage industry based upon the fact that the tax system
is
too complicated for the average taxpayer to understand. Not only do we
pay
taxes, but we have to pay others to pay our taxes for us.

I've always been for a flat tax, or a national sales tax, or something
similar.
Get rid of the loopholes for the rich.

I keep reading about loopholes but I cant find any to help me out. Guess
I'm not rich enough. I saw one guy complaining about the tax exemption
status of munies and how only rich people buy munies. Bunch of bull.
Eliminate munies tax exemption and cities and states will just have to pay
higher interest and guess who pays that.

Have everyone pay the same percentage.
Offer exemptions for those under the poverty level and that's it.

I agree 100%. Problem is.... same percentage of what? Taxable income?
What is taxable income? Interests Dividends... Capital gains?
I go for the National sales tax with a rebate for people below poverty.
Everybody pays the same on what they spend. That will encourage savings as
well.
Maybe we won't have to pay off those bonds in the social security trust
fund.

ScottW

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" said:

George doesn't seem to get that the one of the major reasons for the
success
of the U.S. is the fact that we have such low taxes compared to other
countries.

Believe it or not, but it's entirely possible that this line of
thinking will breed an entire new generation of communists...

According to McKelvy and his ilk, they're already here. Or has everybody
forgotten Taxachusetts?


I never used the term.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:28:14 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

It's the threat of jail and the use of force I
oppose....

But you are in favor of this threat when it comes to private
contracts. Hence you must acknowledge the juridical basis of all
contracts. Now this means that all contracts are really the creation
of the state, so they can be defined by the state in different ways,
including a requirement of paying the state some portion of the value
of the contract for its services.

At the state level, it seems reasonable. At least only the people needing
the service are paying for the service.

Indeed this has always been true of
all forms of property rights--that they are defined by the state and
have been subject to various restrictions and qualifications.

I'm opposed to taxes on property, since that means you don't really own it.

The
conception of property you are using has never actually existed
anywhere and is a purely ideological construct, hence it cannot really
serve to define taxation as theft.

See above. If you have to pay a tax on your property forever, you never can
own it.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:29:17 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"jak163" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:28:36 -0800, "John Williams"
wrote:

I'm a moderate with a libertarian bent but I'll take a stab at this.

I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups.
Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

What you are talking about is weath redistribution. The US constitution
does not authorize wealth redistribution.

16th Amendment?

Which is unconstitutional. The only reason it wasn't ruled so was because
the Court was afraid of FDR.

Constitutional amendments aren't subject to judicial review. They
can't be unconstitutional.

I guess you missed where I responded to my stupidity an hour before you did.

The rebate still means paperwork. How about a national sales tax with
exemptions for the essentials - food, shelter, health care and education?


I go for the National sales tax with a rebate for people below poverty.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that.


Yes. Unless there's a voluntary tax collection method.

It's called zero tax on inheritence or wages, but a 30-40% tax
on sales other than basic items(food, clothes, gas, etc).

It works. You are frugal and invest your money, you pay less taxes.
You but that new jet plane or SUV, though, and you end up paying
some tax on it.

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

If you want to bet on this question, bet against reform. Remember how
McCain's candidacy was sabotaged by other Republicans?

This will be sabotaged by the Democrats.

You are in serious denial.


They already have campaigned against his proposals

"John Williams" wrote in message
...
The rebate still means paperwork. How about a national sales tax with
exemptions for the essentials - food, shelter, health care and education?


Wouldn't that stimulate our purchasing items from overseas rather than
from domestic sources?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

You're talking about tax dollars being fewer, I talking about tax rates
being lower. Raising them to far is a disincentive to investment and
saving. Lowering stimulates investment and spending and saving, thereby
increasing employment and taxpayers.

There you go again about supply-side economics. Did you know that the only
country in the world where supply-side economics have actually worked is
India? Do you know why? Because approximately 1% of the population pays
taxes.

Why supply-side economics will never work in a country like America is
documented quite brilliantly in David Stockman's book (he's the guy who
invented, and eventually got disillusioned, by it), but I will give you a
brief synopsis.

In the United States, the majority of the country pays taxes, therefore
lowering the tax rate is not going to be a further incentive to people to
pay their taxes, because they're paying them in any case.

If the people need any incentive at all, it's simplifying the tax code (a
Republican policy that I, and any sane person, will in implicit agreement
with).